Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Tuesday 01 February 2005 04:45 pm, Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote:
> Well, thanks for that - it is an interesting perspective.
>
> However, I think trademarks do apply to this. For example, if I call my
> schema the B-schema, and B is my trademark, then either I dilute my mark by
> using it in this way or users are required to get a trademark license to
> advertize the B-Schema instance. My understanding is that you are required
> to provide an explicit license the use the term "B-schema" if you want to
> use your mark.
>
> It is my understanding that any document authored by me is my copyright -
> schema, code or not.  The intellectual property associated with any
> document I write is also subject to my ownership under law - even if I have
> not pursued a patent, since no one else can patent my ideas if I have
> published it.

", since no one else can patent my ideas if I have published it."

I hear that in fact this is more that they should not be able to patent your 
ideas after you have published them, not that they cannot, and that in fact, 
the searches done for prior art are way too small and patents are awarded 
like this fairly regularly. AND... the costs to invalidate the patent are way 
too large and the process too long.

Anyone with facts care to comment?

Also, ideas published or methods published are not under your control AFAIK. 
If copyrighted, you do have a copyright in them though.
>
> I have done enough work in this area to know that the statement "as UK
> copyright law is concerned, and it should be fairly similar to the rest of
> the world" is niave.  It seems most unlikely despite the wide influence of
> British common law.
>
> I believe that a prohibition of use of the schema that I have suggested
> would be enforcable in both the USA and the UK. I await to be corrected by
> a legal authority.
>
> Don't get me started on patent law ... but ... it seems to me that today's
> patent law which provides sweeping protection to a whole range of
> intellectual property is broken significantly in the favor of large
> corporations and does not serve individual inventors.  I would campaign to
> change the patent law in a number of ways compatible with both the US
> constitution and the rights of the individual inventor. But, as it stands,
> I concede it is broken and immoral.

Any ideas on how the individuals can gain lost ground wrt the mega corps? In 
the area of copyrights, I think my idea wrt default copyright terms may ahve 
some promise, but I want some discussions.

WRT patents, should the patent office have to maintain an idea bank where 
anyone could register an idea and receive an official idea number and date. 
No search for prior art would be necessary. This bank would then need to be 
searched for proir art along with the current search areas before patents 
could be awarded. Would something like that amke any defference?
>
> I am a US patent holder and have personally filed here and in Europe. The
> associated costs are an outrage.
>
> With respect,
> Steven
>
>
>
> Geraint Paul Bevan wrote ..
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Steven wrote:
> > | What I have in mind is that perhaps there is some assertion that
> > | can be made in the copyright of the XML schema that specifies the
> > | copyright of instance documents.
> >
> > I am not a lawyer and I am not an expert on copyright or patents.
> > However, I suspect that you may not be able to impose constraints on
> > users of your schema.
> >
> > As far as UK copyright law is concerned, and it should be fairly similar
> > to the rest of the world, there are limits on what is subject to
> > copyright protection:
> >
> >
> > Quoting:
> > http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/std/faq/copyright/what_protected.
> >htm
> >
> >
> > "Copyright gives rights to the creators of the following kinds of
> > material or "works":
> >
> > "    * original literary works - for example, novels, newspaper
> > articles, lyrics for songs, and instruction manuals. Computer programs
> > are also a form of literary work protected by copyright, as are some
> > types of databases
> >
> > [ a list of other things that certainly are not software ]
> >
> > "Copyright does not protect ideas, names or titles, or functional or
> > industrial articles."
> >
> >
> >
> > Consequently, your XML schema definition may not be protected by
> > copyright (as an industrial article) and I would very much doubt that
> > instantiation of it would be.
> >
> > As far as patent protection is concerned, you only get that if you pay
> > for it and go through the whole process of applying through the patent
> > office. In Europe, software patents are not (yet) valid in most
> > circumstances. In the US they are, but you would probably need to
> > demonstrate some originality and technical innovation.
> >
> > Trademarks do not apply in this case.
> >
> > As a non-lawyer and non-expert in the field, I doubt that there is very
> > much "intellectual property" that you can protect.
> >
> >
> > - --
> > Geraint Bevan
> > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/geraint.bevan
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
> >
> > iEYEARECAAYFAkH/9msACgkQcXV3N50QmNNZvgCeNzwShbVqjJ/rem4n2y7t3vNu
> > WPgAnRvHB4TO2aofBK2P8fI7++//q8WI
> > =38a/
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-licenses mailing list
> > cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses